LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

[LoyceV]

Personally I would think when the user leave a positive feedback for low amount trade it's not really correct isn't? especially for a brand new newbie, some people might think he's safe to trade without an escrow.

It's even worse if they earn 2 positive feedbacks after using escrow: they had no possibility to scam, so they didn't prove they can be trusted. The Collectibles board seems to have a different view on the Trust system than the rest of the forum. I've seen users include (almost) anyone who left them positive feedback into their Trust list.

Those users who left a wrong feedback also left so many correct feedback, it would be unfair if I just looking his single mistake but I didn't care with so many contribution he do for this forum.

Also true. You have to weigh in all feedbacks, and if you think the total makes the forum better, don't exclude them.

[1713273495]

1713273495

[1713273495]

1713273495

[1713273495]

1713273495

[1713273495]

1713273495

[1713273495]

1713273495

[Apocollapse]

The Collectibles board seems to have a different view on the Trust system than the rest of the forum. I've seen users include (almost) anyone who left them positive feedback into their Trust list.

This is wrong since positive feedback is to reflect someone accounts wouldn't likely to scam and could be trusted for trade without escrow, but including them on trust list would become a problem since we don't know how correct his trust feedback especially he did giving to many users. To become DT2 they only need one DT1 included on his trust list, sometimes I think the requirement to become a DT2 is quite easier rather than DT1. Perhaps to become DT2 they need at least 3 DT1 members to trust them, it's not really hard IMO and encourage more of the use trust system.

Also true. You have to weigh in all feedbacks, and if you think the total makes the forum better, don't exclude them.

Now I'm more understand about "the forum's mission to be as free as possible" there's no such minimum requirements that deserve a positive or negative feedbacks, but it depends on each user's perspective to give it. But giving a positive positive feedback for low amount trade and didn't risking anything sound like an abuse, same as negative feedback used for personal's matter.

I don't know how it's will be possible, but I'd prefer to see a trust list without the username appeared, so one know which users trust him and distrust him (due to conflicts). Though there's a chance some users might abuse the trust list, but theymos can work more harder to reshuffle and remove the DT1 abusers (Little bit of topic: I also want this happen for merit system as many users often giving merit because they got from someone who gave him before, this will encourage people to give merit for the quality, not the person)

[AnotherAlt]

I am not sure where to ask this question. Since this thread is about trust and feedback systems. I would like to leave my question here.

Do you believe scam busters and some specific DT members helping the forum by leaving negative feedback on bounty cheaters' accounts? 

I have seen bounty hunters do cheats on the bounty campaigns and some users hunting them as well. After they catch any bounty cheater with multiple alt accounts, they do report and DT members tag those newbie accounts. Those bounty cheater hunters are known as scam busters and sometimes they got positive feedback for this which is not correct in my opinion.

DT members tag bounty cheaters for doing cheat which is correct, but after leaving them negative feedback, those newbies create another account and come back again. So, the forum doesn't get any help from this hunting. In this case, I would say bounty managers and the Bounty organization getting help from the hunting.

[Upgrade00]

Do you believe scam busters and some specific DT members helping the forum by leaving negative feedback on bounty cheaters' accounts?  

Your question, if I understand is; scam bursters help the forum but bursting cheaters who would also likely be spammers. Definitely yes.
As for DT members, it's basically one of the main reasons they were added.

I have seen bounty hunters do cheats on the bounty campaigns and some users hunting them as well. After they catch any bounty cheater with multiple alt accounts, they do report and DT members tag those newbie accounts. Those bounty cheater hunters are known as scam busters and sometimes they got positive feedback for this which is not correct in my opinion.

You would have to give an actual case of a positive feedback and discuss why it's not correct to you. A random case of a user catching and tagging bounty cheaters is kind of broad.

I'm personally of the opinion that trust feedback should be used in cases where user shows trustworthiness or hints of the opposite, tagging cheaters does not mean trustworthiness. I'll rather add such a user to my trust list as their judgement is most times accurate.

DT members tag bounty cheaters for doing cheat which is correct, but after leaving them negative feedback, those newbies create another account and come back again. So, the forum doesn't get any help from this hunting. In this case, I would say bounty managers and the Bounty organization getting help from the hunting.

What's the problem here and your solution to it?

[LoyceV]

Do you believe scam busters and some specific DT members helping the forum by leaving negative feedback on bounty cheaters' accounts?

I think it's a waste of time to tag Newbies without any earned Merit for something they can just continue from many new accounts.

I have seen bounty hunters do cheats on the bounty campaigns and some users hunting them as well. After they catch any bounty cheater with multiple alt accounts, they do report and DT members tag those newbie accounts.

I've seen that too. If they believe someone deserves negative feedback, they should do it by themselves. That's how the Trust system becomes less centralized.

after leaving them negative feedback, those newbies create another account and come back again.

It's futile. And worse, if too many accounts get tags for something as dumb as spamming Twitter and Facebook, it could make people believe negative feedback is normal instead of a big warning.

[AnotherAlt]

What's the problem here and your solution to it?

See the problem:

It's futile. And worse, if too many accounts get tags for something as dumb as spamming Twitter and Facebook, it could make people believe negative feedback is normal instead of a big warning.

I cannot suggest a solution. Because it depends on who you are and how you handle those things.

[LoyceV]

I cannot suggest a solution.

I can:

Trust list
You should add users who left accurate feedback and have good Trust lists to your Trust list, and you should exclude users who leave inaccurate feedback.
This means your Trust list should be based on how you value the users' judgement on others, and it should not be based on whether or not you Trust those users (with money) or traded with them.
I encourage anyone to create their own custom Trust list! But before you do, please continue reading so you understand the implications.

[KingsDen]

It's 1 year and 1+ months I joined this great forum. I have learnt many things in the forum, but when it comes to the issue of trust list and feedback, I didn't care to use them because I believed that;
1. Since I don't trade or offer services for now, I don't need it.
2. Since I am not a DT1 or DT2, my trust list wouldn't matter or count.
But few weeks ago, after I created My fears about forum trust system. I got the replies below from LoyceV and 1miau, which gave me the conviction to start using the trust system.

• I have many users here that I trust their judgement, but I don't think it's worth stressing myself about.

  That's unfortunate, because the Trust system can only be decentralized if enough people use it:
  

• I didn't know that a fellow without a feedback from DT1 or DT2 can have a stake in the trust system.

  Well, not directly. But with 10+ earned Merit, you can have a vote, and with 250+ earned Merit, you can have a big vote for DT1.
  If you use the Trust system correctly, eventually someone will include you and your feedback becomes more meaningful to others.
  

• And when you have some time, I encourage you to read about trust because in my opinion, it's very important for the forum to get rid of abusers. The more people are using trust and creating their trust list, the better it's getting for Bitcointalk because it's getting more difficult to abuse.
  

Thanks LoyceV for the thread, though it's a beginner's guide and this night I consider myself a beginner and I have benefited by knowing the difference between trust feedback and trust list and the correct use of the trust system.

[LoyceV]

I didn't care to use them because I believed that;
1. Since I don't trade or offer services for now, I don't need it.
2. Since I am not a DT1 or DT2, my trust list wouldn't matter or count.

Point 2 isn't true: being on DefaultTrust means your Trust list matters to others. With or without that, your Trust list (and the feedback you leave) matter for yourself.

~which gave me the conviction to start using the trust system.

Go for it Last Saturday, your Trust list was still empty.

[1miau]

It's 1 year and 1+ months I joined this great forum. I have learnt many things in the forum, but when it comes to the issue of trust list and feedback, I didn't care to use them because I believed that;
1. Since I don't trade or offer services for now, I don't need it.
2. Since I am not a DT1 or DT2, my trust list wouldn't matter or count.
But few weeks ago, after I created My fears about forum trust system. I got the replies below from LoyceV and 1miau, which gave me the conviction to start using the trust system.

LoyceV already pointed out, why a customized trust list would even matter for you, when you are not DT1 or DT2, because it's important to your own trust network.
By adding accounts to your personal trust list, you'll see those feedbacks, no matter if those accounts are regularly DT or not.
Because you have added them as your depth 0 accounts. And these accounts are acting as DT1 for your personal trust impressions.

For example: in case you are active on the collectibles board and you have the standard DT network because you haven't set up a personalized trust list:
Customizing your DT list with accounts from the collectibles board will show you more ratings from accounts active in collectibles.
Same goes for local boards etc.

You can decide which accounts are showing a good judgement and which ones should be excluded.
By doing so, DT is getting a decentralized trust network, combining all trust lists of everyone and displaying the average, which is called DefaultTrust.

And no need to be discouraged because it's difficult to get DT2 or even DT1: everyone started without being on DT and got into DT by leaving valid feedback.  
Without leaving valid feedback, there's no reason to be added to DT.

Even with your personal trust list, you can always view an account how it's looking like for standard DT: By adding ;dt

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2143453;dt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2143453
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=459836;dt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=459836

[KingsDen]

Go for it Last Saturday, your Trust list was still empty.

It's working now LoyceV, thanks much

New Trust lists created in the past week:

Week 184 (2022-07-23_Sat_05.08h)
(BPIP)
NEW 3333894: KingsDen (Trust:  neutral) (676 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

And no need to be discouraged because it's difficult to get DT2 or even DT1: everyone started without being on DT and got into DT by leaving valid feedback.  
Without leaving valid feedback, there's no reason to be added to DT.

That's great, now I have known the importance of it, I am in. This forum has been nice since I met it, so I will not fold hands without contributing. It takes nothing to be honest and bold, condemn the bad and praise the good. Thanks 1miau for the encouragement.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3333894;dt
(This is cool)

[Poker Player]

I now have a doubt when consulting this trust list:

If you change your mind later on, I have a backup

While scrolling down, I've seen that AnotherAlt trusts The Pharmacist's judgement.

So, I went to look, and saw that AnotherAlt has a trust list, which seems to be under construction.

According to him he has two other accounts on the forum, making three in total. Assuming he is cautious about privacy, the trust lists of the other two are not going to be exactly the same, but presumably some of the members he trusts have a boost in the DT system because he includes them in his trust list three times while he is one person.

I don't know to what extent we should consider this as acceptable. It's not completely unacceptable in my opinion but seems to me morally questionable.

Another thing is if we can not know which are the other two accounts and therefore, even if we consider that including in three trust lists the same person being you one is morally questionable.

I don't know what you think about it.

I am obviously referring to LoyceV, but I welcome comments from other forum members as well.

If we go to his trust list we can see that he distrusts JollyGood and trusts Royse777, dkbit98 and BitcoinGirl.Club, which after all the recent drama is a big lol and a half.

[LoyceV]

According to him he has two other accounts on the forum, making three in total. Assuming he is cautious about privacy, the trust lists of the other two are not going to be exactly the same, but presumably some of the members he trusts have a boost in the DT system because he includes them in his trust list three times while he is one person.

First, sockpuppets used for DT1-voting will be blacklisted from voting once discovered.

I don't know to what extent we should consider this as acceptable. It's not completely unacceptable in my opinion but seems to me morally questionable.

Another thing is if we can not know which are the other two accounts and therefore, even if we consider that including in three trust lists the same person being you one is morally questionable.

We can't know for sure indeed. So I checked his Trust inclusions: 8 out of 10 users have more than enough inclusions to not need another "small 10 Merit vote". One user has only 4 more votes than the required 10. That's still 3 other user's votes away from making a difference to the outcome. And there's one user with only one vote, which means there's no sockpuppeting for sure.

I don't know what you think about it.

I'm pretty sure there are more alt accounts that didn't confirm they're alt accounts. AnotherAlt is open about it, and I don't see much harm done here.

[AnotherAlt]

Well, I use Telegram Notification Bot so I already got notified that you guys were talking about me. May I join, please?

According to him, he has two other accounts on the forum, making three in total.

Let me correct it a little bit. I have two accounts here. One AnotherAlt, another is Crypt0S0ul (Which was created in 2020 but I could not post due to an IP ban. LoyceV helped me to get whitelisted). About your assumption of having another account, I created a few more accounts because all the accounts contained evil points and asked to pay some BTC, which I didn't pay. I chose the AnotherAlt account to pay evil fees because it had fewer evil fees than others. If you are talking about Privacy, why do I ask Royse not to reveal me; I work for a crypto platform and don't want to involve myself with them within this forum. I want to be an independent individual in this forum who doesn't have any responsibility for the platform here. Royse and Bitlucy owner know which platform it is. I hope he will keep it a secret.

the trust lists of the other two are not going to be exactly the same, but presumably, some of the members he trusts have a boost in the DT system because he includes them in his trust list three times while he is one person. I don't know to what extent we should consider this acceptable. It's not completely unacceptable in my opinion but seems to me morally questionable.

Well, I care about forum rules and I want to follow them accordingly. I also want to follow some ethics. Cryp0S0ul, My Main account is still in newbie rank. It doesn't have a custom trust list. Since I have earned some merits in this account, I started posting more and using this account. I use Cryp0S0ul on my mobile device and it doesn't have a Custom Trust list.

If we go to his trust list, we can see that he distrusts JollyGood and trusts Royse777, dkbit98 and BitcoinGirl.Club, which after all the recent drama is a big lol and a half.

Well, I don't have a problem explaining further. On June 3rd Week, I added icopress and LoyceV to my Trust list because in my opinion, They have a good Trust list, and their Feedback seems reasonable to me. In July Last week, I added yahoo62278, Royse777, o_e_l_e_o, NotATether, and KingsDen. I found they also have an excellent Trustlist, and most Feedback seems correct except KingsDen. I added KingsDen because I see his Trustlist is good, but I didn't check his Feedback. Today I removed him because, in my opinion, He left some feedback that is not the correct use of the feedback system. In the same week, I realized JollyGood Distrust my Judgment Just because I made This and This posts, JollyGood Added me on his distrust list.

~AnotherAlt's judgement is Distrusted by:
1. NEW JollyGood (Trust: +16 / =1 / -0) (DT1! ( 1081 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

I took it as a regular thing and moved forward. Last week, I added The Pharmacist, BitcoinGirl.Club, and dkbit98. I checked all of their Trust list and Feedback, which seems pretty much correct (If I see 90% of their Feedback is correct, it seems good to me). I saw BitcoinGirl.Club created a thread and criticized JollyGood's behavior. Her arguments look good. I am still confused about Her Feedback on JollyGood. I don't think it's 100% correct. But, her posts and Judgment Convinced me to add her to my Trust list. I also saw she distrusts yahoo, which I don't. I excluded JollyGood because, in my opinion, I don't think he is using the system correctly. Not only BitcoinGirl.Club and other members criticized him for his ghost-hunting behavior and attitude.

[Poker Player]

-snip

As a result of these explanations, I am going to put you in my distrust list. 

Naaaa, just joking.

Although the doubt I had when I saw your trust list, it made me learn somethinh new, such as the fact that

... sockpuppets used for DT1-voting will be blacklisted from voting once discovered.

I may have confused you with someone else as I remember someone saying they had two other accounts.

Kind regards.

[AnotherAlt]

As a result of these explanations, I am going to put you in my distrust list. 

Naaaa, just joking.

I understand that you are joking. Suppose You added someone to your Distrust list; an Average person will also add you to his distrust list. But, A Wise guy who wants to use the system accordingly won't distrust you back. About Jolly Case, I didn't add him to my distrust list just because he distrusted my judgment. I took two weeks to observe his behavior and figured out it's a regular thing he loves doing. Oh, What I am talking about? I guess you know better than me.

[JayJuanGee]

I don't know what you think about it.

I'm pretty sure there are more alt accounts that didn't confirm they're alt accounts. AnotherAlt is open about it, and I don't see much harm done here.

I was planning on creating an alt account that would clearly be connected to me because it will have some variation of my name within it, and I am planning to use it as a kind of business account.. meaning that it would be tied to a kind of work/project that I am doing and planning to do.. and I am thinking that my first post with such account (once I make it) will attempt to describe what I am going to try to do with the account that is connected with me.. might not always be me posting from it (even though I have authorized all the posts therein)... something like that... still working out the details.

Of course, for me, I would not be cross trusting or sending smerits to such account.. and I am not sure if there might be backlash or confusion.. and I am hoping to work most of that stuff out as I go.. .. but still it is a project that I am "getting around to" in terms of how it is going to be presented on the forum and through my intended alt account.

[LoyceV]

I am not sure if there might be backlash or confusion..

You can just leave neutral feedback in both directions: "LoyceMobile is my alt, don't deal with it, I use it on untrusted devices/locations. To reach me, talk to LoyceV only.". That confirms it's not just an imposter.

might not always be me posting from it (even though I have authorized all the posts therein)...

Tricky: they'd better not break plagiarism rules, or you risk taking the fall.

[JayJuanGee]

might not always be me posting from it (even though I have authorized all the posts therein)...

Tricky: they'd better not break plagiarism rules, or you risk taking the fall.

I am pretty sure that I would be reviewing all the posts until I get to trust anyone posting from the account.. and that sometimes my own inabilities to sufficiently delegate...   but yeah, I am not really used to using plagiarism tools.. and for sure I would not want posts that are not either original content or adequately citing the source.. so I suppose that should be part of the training process regarding citing sources properly... and in writing my response, I can see where there could end up being a danger because so many folks do like to take short-cuts.. and surely teachers these days have become experts on searching for plagiarism.

[Timelord2067]

Why not have multiple UID's e.g.

• brand_Jess
• brand_Mike
• brand_Sally
• brand_Hank

to differentiate exactly who is posting ?

Hypothetically speaking...

I suspect the alt may be coated in various shades of Red Paint ^TM quite quickly...

Should anything go wrong...